Daily Press Briefing
Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
May 25, 2016
Index for Today's Briefing
DEPARTMENT
LIBERIA
DEPARTMENT
RUSSIA/UKRAINE
AFGHANISTAN
AZERBAIJAN
JAPAN
ISRAEL
TRANSCRIPT:
2:07 p.m. EDT
MR TONER: Hi, guys. Welcome to the State Department. Just a couple of things at the top and then I'll turn to your questions.
First of all, today I'm pleased to announce we're releasing the first-ever joint USAID-State Department Strategy on Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism, continuing to build on the efforts launched at the February 2015 White House summit. This strategy provides a roadmap with five strategic objectives to meet the challenge of radicalization, to violence, and as well as terrorist recruitment.
State and USAID will work together closely with other U.S. Government and key international partners to advance all five of these strategic objectives using the full range of diplomatic, development, and foreign assistance tools. Both the strategy itself and the fact sheet will be available after today's briefing. In addition, the Bureau of Counterterrorism has formally transitioned to the Bureau of Counterterrorism and Countering Violent Extremism.
Secretary Kerry is empowering the newly renamed bureau to serve as the lead for coordinating the State Department's CVE engagement and assistance. The bureau's expanded CVE office will continue to work closely with U.S. Government partners, CVE partners including USAID, the interagency Global Engagement Center, and others. USAID is also increasing its focus on CVE by establishing a secretariat to coordinate its programming and to ensure collaboration with other governmental departments and development institutions.
And just a final note here: The State Department's Acting Counterterrorism Coordinator Justin Siberell will be speaking about this new approach in a speech today at the George Washington Program on Countering Violent Extremism.
And also, turning to Liberia, today in New York, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution that ends the UN arms embargo on Liberia. This step reflects the significant and steady advances by the people and the Government of Liberia towards restoring peace and security for all Liberians. More than 12 years after the end of Liberia's brutal civil war and the Council's imposition of sanctions, the people of Liberia have made important progress in building democratic institutions and healing the wounds of the past. Today's resolution is a notable example of how multilateral tools such as sanctions are an effective means of encouraging the kind of progress we've seen over the past decade in Liberia.
First question. I went Reuters yesterday. I'll go AP today and then – go ahead.
QUESTION: All right. Can I start with the IG report on email practices?
MR TONER: Okay.
QUESTION: Do you agree with what seems to be the essential conclusion regarding specifically past Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's email practices that she essentially played by her own rules?
MR TONER: Well, Brad, so I'll try to address your questions, but I'm at a bit of a disadvantage, and the reason why is that, as often happens in Washington, D.C. – but this report is not due for public release until tomorrow, and so I know that some of the – some in the media did receive leaked copies of the report. And so I'm somewhat limited into the extent I can go into because I don't want to talk about the report's conclusions in great detail until that report's been released publicly.
But what we have been saying in general about the OIG report and the process is that that was something that Secretary Kerry asked the OIG to do, he – undertake this review. They have made recommendations. We've already complied with many of those recommendations in the report that you'll see, and that it does – the report – highlight the challenges that the State Department, but also as well as other federal agencies, are facing in trying to ensure proper recordkeeping and accountability for email traffic.
QUESTION: So, wait.
MR TONER: Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Can I ask my question now that you've gone through all of that?
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: And since you briefed – you gave a background briefing, which I guess was anonymous spin, I don't see why you can't address something at a open press briefing.
MR TONER: Well, again, I'll – you can try your question again, but I'm limited.
QUESTION: You said you would address the question.
MR TONER: Here's the problem, Brad, and we have precedent here. We don't talk about leaked documents. We don't often address them, and we do this across the board.
QUESTION: But you did this morning in a conference call.
MR TONER: Well, we had to address through a background briefing, and I take objection to your allegation that it's some kind of spin effort. We were simply trying to get out there on background to talk about some of the allegations or the – some of the findings, rather, in this report, since it was out in public.
QUESTION: So can I follow up on that, please?
MR TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: And I understand you have some limitations, but I think that there are institutional questions that ought to be addressed.
MR TONER: Okay.
QUESTION: One of the findings in the report was that the – Secretary Clinton – or the OIG found no evidence that Secretary Clinton ever sought approval for her use of a private server. And it also quotes the Chief Information Officer – who I believe is part of IRM, right? – and the Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security as saying that they believed that she had an obligation to ask them and that if they had been asked, they would have declined it – declined to approve it.
The report also explicitly states that the Undersecretary of Management discussed the issue with some of the secretary's top staff. The Undersecretary of Management is directly responsible for the bureaus – for IRM, correct? Yes? I mean, people can't see your nod in the --
MR TONER: I'm sorry. (Laughter.) I said – I'm following your question.
QUESTION: Is the Undersecretary of Management responsible for IRM and for DS? Do they not both report to him or her?
MR TONER: Yes, that's correct.
QUESTION: Yeah. Why didn't the Undersecretary of Management, who is responsible for the two bureaus that complained that they should have been asked but weren't to approve this – why didn't he raise it?
MR TONER: So let me try to broadly answer your – the points you've raised or the issues you've raised. First of all, about whether Secretary Clinton was required to seek approval – and we've talked about this in the past, so I feel like I can speak about it on the record now – is that while not necessarily encouraged, there was no prohibition on using personal email. The only requirement is that – and regulations do state this – that these records need to be preserved. And I would say, looking back with 20/20 hindsight, we do now have records management and cyber security policies that would make it hard to approve this kind of outside system to replace your official email.
And Secretary Clinton has said publicly she didn't – or she would not make the same choice again. She's also said she did not seek a specific approval for this system. And I am aware that senior State Department officials noted in the report said they wouldn't have approved her exclusive reliance on a personal email to conduct official business. I'm not going to challenge that assertion – those assertions. As I said, she herself has said she would not have done it the same way or made the same choice again. But I don't want to re-litigate all of that, and frankly, I'm not sure that the report gets into the – into assigning blame on that.
QUESTION: It said she had no obligation to discuss it.
QUESTION: But Mark, here – one thing here, I mean, the report says – you state that there was no absolute prohibition on the use of personal email, which is true.
MR TONER: Correct.
QUESTION: However, beginning in late 2005 and continuing through 2011, the Department revised the Foreign Affairs Manual and issued various memoranda specifically discussing the obligation to use Department systems in most circumstances. So there was an obligation to use Department systems in most circumstances, correct?
MR TONER: Again, I don't --
QUESTION: Are you disputing that?
MR TONER: I mean, I don't – if you're quoting me chapter and verse, I'm not going to dispute that, but it wasn't prohibited. Yeah.
QUESTION: In occasional circumstances, but it was prohibited in – to do it in every circumstance, because the obligation here is that in most circumstances, you have to use the Department systems. So when you say it's not absolutely prohibited, you are right, but you're not right if you use that statement to suggest that it was acceptable to use it in most circumstances – because Secretary Clinton used it in every circumstance, correct?
MR TONER: But again, and in answer to your second question, while people were aware of her use of personal email, no one had a full and complete understanding of to the extent.
QUESTION: Well, let me go to the next --
MR TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: Some people did have a full and complete understanding of the extent, like she did, right?
MR TONER: Well, again, that's something --
QUESTION: She understood that, right?
MR TONER: And that's a question for her and her team to answer to that.
QUESTION: Right, but there is a reason I'm raising this --
MR TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: -- and it's an institutional question because you guys – you have an interest, it would seem to me, in securing the communications of this --
MR TONER: Yes, we do.
QUESTION: -- of the top diplomat, right? And therefore, it's not just for her to ask, but surely isn't it for the people around her, including the Undersecretary of Management who did discuss this issue with her top aides, to raise these issues? And so I want to go back to --
MR TONER: I'm not sure what you're – I apologize. I'm not sure what you're referring specifically about he did discuss these issues.
QUESTION: So on page 38 it says, "In August 2011, the Executive Secretary, the Undersecretary for Management and Secretary Clinton's Chief of Staff and Deputy Chief of Staff, in a response to the Secretary's request, discussed via email providing her with a Department BlackBerry to replace her personal BlackBerry, which was malfunctioning, possibly because," quote – and this email has been released – her – quote, "her personal email server is down." So the Undersecretary of Management, the Chief of Staff, an unidentified Deputy Chief of Staff all discussed this issue via email. The Undersecretary of Management is responsible for the two bureaus, IRM and DS, who say that they believe the Secretary had an obligation to ask for permission, ask for approval to use this, and who say that if they had been asked, they would have said no. And I don't understand why their boss wouldn't have addressed this issue, because he's responsible for both of them and he discussed it with the top officials in the Department, including the Chief of Staff.
MR TONER: It is our understanding, Arshad, that the full extent of her use of private email was not clear to senior staff. Now, what you're referring to is the two --
QUESTION: "Senior staff" meaning who? Her deputy – her Chief of Staff didn't know this?
MR TONER: Her – again, people were aware she was using it. I can't speak to that specifically. You're talking about Undersecretary for Management.
QUESTION: Right.
MR TONER: All --
QUESTION: And maybe he didn't know, but --
MR TONER: All I can say is --
QUESTION: But --
MR TONER: And so just to finish my response, I think what you're referring to is knowing in, to use an expression, 20/20 hindsight that these two senior State Department officials then said they would not have approved of this. Again, I don't – I think Secretary Clinton has said as much, that she, looking back, would not have done the same – the same course of action. I also want to say – sorry --
QUESTION: But why didn't the Department make an effort – because some people did know it.
MR TONER: But --
QUESTION: She knew it, her Chief of Staff knew it, and her Undersecretary for Management to some degree was aware that she had a personal email and it was --
MR TONER: But I do think we – so --
QUESTION: -- and knew that there was a discussion of replacing it and knew that that was ultimately rejected. So I don't get why the Department, understanding it has such an obligation to secure her communications, would not, at a senior level responsible both for information technology and Diplomatic Security, wouldn't have raised this and flagged it as an issue so you would be in keeping with your own rules.
MR TONER: So again, without wading too much into the details of this, which I'm uncomfortable doing given that it's not gone public yet, but a couple of things. One is, we have said in the past and continue to say that our recordkeeping – we could have done a better job at preserving emails and records of secretaries of state and their senior staff going back, frankly, several administrations – so back to before Secretary Clinton. We recognize that. I will also make the point that the fact that she turned over some 52,000 pages of her emails – and I think the OIG recognized that – in some ways mitigated those past preservation problems. You're talking about – and I get your question, which is: Was there knowledge; if there was knowledge, why weren't steps taken? I'm not going to re-litigate that, I just am not. The OIG report has its conclusions, has its recommendations. We've worked to address those recommendations. We acknowledge that we need to do a better job with our recordkeeping. We believe we've – we're doing such. We have taken steps to meet all of the recommendations that the OIG report has made and, in fact, the OIG has said that we are in compliance or has – rather, that they consider all eight recommendations --
QUESTION: They didn't say you were in compliance.
MR TONER: I apologize, I apologize – that all eight recommendations have been resolved.
QUESTION: Yep. I've got one more sets of issues on this.
MR TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: So in the background briefing, one official said repeatedly that the report says that "we didn't do a great job." The phrase "great job" and "didn't do a great job" appear nowhere in the report. The report's conclusion states, "The Department generally and the Office of the Secretary in particular have been slow to recognize and to manage effectively the legal requirements and cybersecurity risks associated with electronic data communications." And in its opening one-page summary, it says, "Management weaknesses at the Department have contributed to the loss or removal of email records, particularly records created by the Office of the Secretary. These weaknesses include a limited ability to retrieve email records, inaccessibility of electronic files, failure to comply with the requirements for departing employees, and a general lack of oversight."
Do you believe that the official was truthful in stating "we didn't do a great job?" Because great job – he said that the report says that over and over again. The phrase is not there, and what it says is that there were systemic weaknesses and management weaknesses and a general lack of oversight. And I ask this because the briefing was on background and I believe people should be accountable for what they say and the accuracy of it, and I don't see why an official would say "we didn't do a great job" – that the report says that when that's not actually what the report says. The report says there were systemic failures and management weaknesses and a general lack of oversight. That's not "we didn't do a great job." That's, you had – why – do you believe that official was correct in making that statement?
MR TONER: Look, I'm not going to parse the expression he used to acknowledge the fact that we, like many federal agencies, were not doing enough to meet the requirements of records management and preservation. I think we've acknowledged that. I've acknowledged it just now on the record. And yet, moving forward, we believe we have set in place at the direction or under the direction of Secretary Kerry efforts to fully comply and meet and improve our records management and preservations system here at the State Department.
And I mean, again, I don't mean to broaden the lens here, but agencies across the federal government have been working to adapt to, unbelievably enough, the – because emails have been around for a while, but the fact that we live in an email-dominated business environment these days, and yet we still were relying up to a few years ago on this print and file system, which is inadequate. We recognize that and we have set in motion – so I'm – your question or your allegation notwithstanding, we acknowledge that.
QUESTION: It's a question whether the guy was truthful. It's a question whether the guy was truthful in that statement --
MR TONER: No, but we have – right, but we have --
QUESTION: -- and I don't think the cloak of anonymity should be sufficient for not telling the truth about what a report says.
MR TONER: I don't think it was – I don't – so – sorry, Brad, I'll get to you in a second. So with all due respect, Arshad, the quote-unquote "cloak of anonymity" – it was a background briefing that we set up, which is a common practice. All of you know in this room, we do background briefings all the time in order to add a little bit more depth and context than we might add regularly on the record for a lot of obvious reasons – so we can give you guys more information or share some of the inner workings. I'm going to finish on this. There's not any effort to spin this; there's not any effort to hide or obfuscate about what the information is.
But I will also acknowledge that one of the reasons we did this on background, acknowledging the fact that other people who were privy to this report before it was publicly released, chose to leak it to members of the media. So you see the dynamic here, and we're – none of us are clean on this, so to speak, in the sense that you guys all got the report leaked to you, or many of you did, but not all of you did. And in an attempt to address that, we held this background telephone press conference to try to address some of your questions. We had no choice, but it is always our preference that this stuff is released publicly, and then we can discuss it publicly.
QUESTION: Can I ask some very targeted questions?
MR TONER: Yeah. Go ahead, Brad. Sure.
QUESTION: The implication on the call was that the Department didn't educate people enough. Wouldn't Clinton, as the head of the entire Department – isn't that her responsibility and not the Department's responsibility to her? That's the first one.
MR TONER: I mean, show – first of all, you are right in that we have said that we did not do a good enough job in in-processing and out-processing, to put it in a bureaucratic way, our senior officials, but even as an institution so that people were aware of what the regulations were.
Brad, I would only say that a lot of these regulations have only kind of been thought about and formulated since she left office. In 2013 specifically was when NARA came out with kind of new and improved recommendations and looked at this.
QUESTION: Okay. I mean --
MR TONER: So --
QUESTION: -- the report says the guidance – the guidance was considerably more detailed and sophisticated by Clinton's tenure and her security practices should be evaluated accordingly, but be that as it may --
MR TONER: Yep.
QUESTION: -- you reference again that not everyone knew that the past secretary only used private email. Wasn't that her responsibility to let them know, in fact?
MR TONER: Well, I think --
QUESTION: There is no other way they would have known, correct?
MR TONER: Well, not – that's not necessarily true. But as an institution, again, we acknowledge that we could have done more to --
QUESTION: But that's her responsibility, isn't it? It even says here Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, not they had an obligation to learn independently about her email --
MR TONER: You're talking about her – I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about just – apologies if I misunderstood.
QUESTION: Her using private email on a private server.
MR TONER: I thought you were talking about her – that it was her responsibility to inform the Department about regulations or – sorry, I misunderstood the question.
QUESTION: No, I'm talking about her using a private email and private server.
MR TONER: Again, I'll just go back to what I said before, which is that it wasn't encouraged, but it was not prohibited.
QUESTION: There were hack attempts on her server. How did that not bring the reassessment that maybe this isn't – and then I – apparently, it just got plugged back in. How did that not bring a reassessment that maybe this wasn't the best strategy?
MR TONER: Well, I don't know – again, I – I don't know if the OIG specifically addresses the security of her system.
QUESTION: Well, he says that she never told anybody about it, so --
MR TONER: I do know there were hack attempts or that – but none of them were successful.
QUESTION: How do you know that none of them were successful?
MR TONER: But I would just have to refer you to the --
QUESTION: How do you know that? Because the report does not say that none of them were successful.
MR TONER: I apologize, actually. I misspoke.
QUESTION: All right.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: All right.
MR TONER: But I will say – but I – but I just would refer you to Secretary Clinton's team to – for questions about the security of her system.
QUESTION: Mark, can you clarify --
MR TONER: Yeah, Carol.
QUESTION: Okay --
MR TONER: Let's go to Carol, and then I'll go to you, Justin. I apologize.
QUESTION: Mark, this morning on the call there was a fair amount of discussion about the fact that when there was a comparison made with the three secretaries who used it almost exclusively, and in that section that Brad just quoted, they said specifically that the rules were clearly in line – were clearly in place by the time the Secretary came in, they were much more sophisticated. So when you compare what Secretary Powell did and what Secretary Clinton did, even though this morning many people said – or it was said repeatedly that this was a problem going back several administrations, do you not see a difference between what Secretary Powell did and what Secretary Clinton did?
MR TONER: Again, I'm not going to litigate from this podium or compare and contrast. I think that what we've said is that the policies, the regulations regarding the use of private email have only really been clarified in the past several years – up until that point, again, understanding that it was not encouraged to use personal email, but it was not prohibited. And I think that this is an evolving process in the sense that – not exclusively to the State Department, I might add – in the sense that many agencies are struggling with how to preserve and manage records-keeping for email use, official emails versus personal emails. Again, I mean, there are circumstances – and we've talked about this before – where senior officials sometimes do have to use personal email.
QUESTION: But it was repeatedly said that this was a problem going back several administrations. The only --
MR TONER: I recognize that.
QUESTION: -- example given in the report was Secretary Powell. So – but it would seem that they – they seem to go out of their way to try to distinguish between the two. Do you not see a difference?
MR TONER: They – I'm sorry, "they" the – in the report, you mean?
QUESTION: The report.
MR TONER: Seem to distinguish between --
QUESTION: Between the circumstances in the sense – in that section that Brad just quoted.
MR TONER: Well, I think – again, I would only say that it's been an evolving understanding of the – some of the challenges in records-keeping involving personal email, but also in the sense that we've also been – and I mentioned this to Brad – how we need to do a better job, and we believe we are doing a better job at onboarding, out-processing senior officials so that they understand the constraints and the rules and the regulations surrounding use of personal email versus official.
QUESTION: Do you believe Secretary Powell acted improperly?
MR TONER: I'm not going to make that judgment.
QUESTION: What's your reaction to the recent swap between Kyiv and Moscow?
QUESTION: I'm sorry --
MR TONER: Can I stay here? I'll go back. Justin, Justin, your turn. Sorry.
QUESTION: All right. Sorry. So I had one about the emails as well.
MR TONER: Please.
QUESTION: And --
MR TONER: Sorry, we'll get to you; I promise. We just – how we normally do is we run through, so --
QUESTION: So this may already be known and I might have missed this, but are we or am I wrong to have assumed that all of the emails in the State – all of Secretary Clinton's emails in the State Department's possession would have been released to the public via the FOIA page? Or do you in fact have a number of emails that didn't meet those standards for – that weren't involved in the FOIA requests and therefore you're holding a number of her emails that we haven't seen?
MR TONER: So what we have released through our monthly FOIA process that all of you love so much was approximately 55,000 pages of emails that Secretary Clinton provided to the Department. I think at the time she said she does not have – that she does not have access to any work-related emails beyond those that she turned over to the Department. So --
QUESTION: I think she said she did not keep them.
MR TONER: She did not keep, rather. Thank you. She did not keep work-related emails beyond those she turned over to the Department. So in answer to your question, we've – what we've done through the FOIA process is turn over all of the emails that she turned over to the State Department.
QUESTION: If --
MR TONER: And we have found additional things – I'm not saying that – when you have replies and other that there are additional emails out there. And this case is, I think, a case of such an example.
QUESTION: How many do you estimate that you have that have not been made public?
MR TONER: I don't think we have an estimate, and I don't think it's a large number. I just think that there are stray examples like this.
QUESTION: Okay. Because some of them seem to be quite relevant, as in this November 2010 email in which she's – one of her chief – deputy chiefs of staff suggests she set up a state.gov account.
MR TONER: Relevant to what? I mean, the FOIA request --
QUESTION: Her use --
MR TONER: What was the FOIA request? It was about --
QUESTION: But --
MR TONER: What?
QUESTION: -- it wasn't a request, it was an offer.
MR TONER: What?
QUESTION: It was an offer by her to release all her work-related emails.
MR TONER: Correct. That's right.
QUESTION: Well, whatever the case may be, the – some of the emails that you still have in your possession seemed relevant to her decision to keep a private email rather than use a state.gov one, which is essentially the entire question. So I'm just wondering if you are interested in releasing any of those emails relevant to this whole discussion about her email --
MR TONER: I can't speak to that. We certainly – if there's additional FOIA requests, we would --
QUESTION: Okay. There may be, if there aren't already.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) follow up on --
QUESTION: If she had written --
MR TONER: I'll get to you.
QUESTION: -- all of these emails on a state.gov account, would it have been for the State Department lawyers to decide which ones were personal and which ones were official, or would it still have been her team that decided which ones that she would offer through the FOIA process? Because the ones you've released are ones that she decided were relevant.
MR TONER: Deemed or decided.
QUESTION: If she had sent them originally through an official account, would she have had the right to choose which ones were official?
MR TONER: It's a good question. I don't know when – whether --
QUESTION: Can you take that one?
MR TONER: I can look into it, certainly, because --
QUESTION: And --
MR TONER: And the reason I ask is I don't know if, for example, I was FOIA'd, whether I would have kind of first right to say here is all my official emails or not, and then they would then be vetted properly. I just don't have the answer for you. I don't know enough about the process.
QUESTION: Okay. Can you take that one and then just --
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: -- one simple follow-up: What is Secretary Kerry's system for receiving and sending emails?
MR TONER: Well, Secretary Kerry relies primarily on his state.gov account for work, and the emails on his state.gov account are automatically archived – and this is an improvement; this is part of the advancements that we've made – so any email that he sends is automatically copied and remotely saved electronically. And again, this speaks to the fact that we are now complying – this automatic archiving approach does comply with the Federal Records Act as well as email records management requirements, so --
QUESTION: And he sends and receives that through a computer here in the building, or does he have access to a mobile device with state.gov on it?
MR TONER: Both, I believe.
QUESTION: Mark, just to go back to Justin's question, has the State Department released all the emails that Secretary Clinton turned over?
MR TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: Then why on the background call was there a discussion of an email that an official admitted was not released to the public?
MR TONER: Because it wasn't part of that tranche of emails that she turned over. And I just – if I explained that poorly, I apologize. There are other emails out there, and she has said that she only turned over what she still had in her possession. So that does not exclude the fact that there are other responses, replies – you know how email works – where there is the body of an email from her that was not reflected in the amount of emails she turned over.
QUESTION: So there could be other emails from Secretary Clinton.
MR TONER: There can be, and I just don't have an accurate – I just don't have a --
QUESTION: It's not a large number, though?
MR TONER: I will double-check. I don't know that we've even looked or – as these things turn up, but it's not like there's some huge cache, no.
QUESTION: Did the State Department mislead the American public when it came to Secretary Clinton's emails in the past year?
MR TONER: No, I don't believe so at all. In fact, we've always said that we were simply going through – and we've been very clear about this, almost tediously so when we talk to you guys about it – is that systematically every month we went through this 55,000 pages of emails that she gave to us. Through the FOIA process, we edited, upgraded them as necessary before we released them publicly, but we only dealt with what we received from Secretary Clinton.
QUESTION: But today the IG is saying that Secretary Clinton was not in compliance with State Department email policy, yet for the past year all we've been hearing about from that podium is that the secretary was in compliance.
MR TONER: We haven't said that either. What we said is that – and I believe – and I'm – Brad can yell at me because I'm wading into the – (laughter) – into the report's findings, but they did say that the fact that she did turn over this large tranche of emails and made an effort to do so mitigated the lack of compliance previously.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: Mitigate doesn't mean negate.
MR TONER: I get it. I said mitigate,
QUESTION: It actually implies the opposite of what you're saying, that she did do something wrong and that this mitigates – it lessens, it dampens – the effect of that wrongdoing. It doesn't even out. If you steal – if you rob a bank and you return the money, it's a mitigating aspect, but it doesn't mean you didn't rob the bank.
MR TONER: Well, first of all --
QUESTION: Not that this is necessarily --
MR TONER: First of all – yeah, let me just back away from that claim right there.
QUESTION: I mean, just basic grammar here, Mark.
MR TONER: No, I mean, we didn't say that. But what – look, and I can't say this enough: We had – we have to do and we are doing a better job at in-processing senior officials. We're doing a better job at making sure that from the top on down that people understand the importance of records, recordkeeping and management. And all we can do is be forward-looking and try to improve and correct the system that we have.
QUESTION: One --
QUESTION: Mark, did Secretary Clinton --
MR TONER: Yeah, yeah.
QUESTION: -- break – violate the law?
MR TONER: No, because – and we said this – there was no restriction, there was no regulation that said she could not use personal email.
QUESTION: But you admit she made mistakes?
QUESTION: Isn't the question of whether or not the Secretary – former Secretary Clinton would have violated the law a matter for the FBI investigation to decide whether they're going to bring any charges ultimately for the judicial process?
MR TONER: Well, there are other – yeah, I mean, there are other – there are other – thank you for – there are other reviews out there that we can't speak to, but legitimate – or a legitimate plan.
QUESTION: Okay. One other question. I want to follow up on Brad's question. You – with regard to hacking attempts, you have previously confirmed, have you not, that there were efforts to hack into the Secretary's email?
MR TONER: I think we have, yeah, but I'm not 100 percent sure.
QUESTION: Okay. So --
MR TONER: But, I mean, hack in – yeah, I mean, right, but none of them – that's why I believe that none of them were successful. We have, I think, addressed that before but I'll double-check.
QUESTION: So here's my next question, then --
MR TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: -- because you – then Brad asked you, "How do you know that they weren't successful?" And you said, "I misspoke. I apologize." And I just want to understand --
MR TONER: Well --
QUESTION: -- do you have any reason to think that there was a successful attempt?
MR TONER: No, no, no. What I – and Brad pointed out was the OIG report – when I was saying I misspoke, it was the – thank you for giving me the chance to clarify – the OIG report doesn't address specifically the security of her system, including whether or not any of the reported attempted hacks were successful. And for that, I would just have to refer you to her team to talk about whether there were and whether any were successful.
QUESTION: But to your knowledge --
MR TONER: To our knowledge, they were not, but I don't know that it's a comprehensive knowledge.
QUESTION: Fine. Thanks.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Mark --
MR TONER: Guys, I apologize for this, I have to leave soon. So if there's any – if we've exhausted the --
QUESTION: Just two very quick questions. One is --
MR TONER: I'll get to you. I promise.
QUESTION: -- about the technicality that whenever a embargoed report gets leaked or somebody breaks the embargo, usually the organization lifts the embargo.
MR TONER: But it's not our --
QUESTION: The similar way – the similar way --
MR TONER: It's – go ahead.
QUESTION: -- you – the report is everywhere. And why are you still keeping it? Why don't you release? That's one.
MR TONER: And I would refer you – and I would refer you to the Office of the Inspector General for that because --
QUESTION: Yeah. The statement – this --
MR TONER: No, let me finish, Tejinder – because they are not under the State Department's authorization. They are a separate entity, and so they're the ones who will release the report.
QUESTION: And the second, you mentioned about the NARA. Jason Baron, the former Director of NARA, spoke at --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- the National Press Club last year and hosted that – before experts. And they clarified that all the secretaries still today, since emails came into being, have been using – not using state.gov, that Secretary Kerry is the first one using it.
MR TONER: I think it's been a mixture, yeah.
QUESTION: Yeah. And then – but so this is not the technicality. The point, as I said, that the NARA has put into place when Secretary Clinton was – some sort of procedure that was not followed. Like, by 2016, 2019, you have a deadline to put everything on the web. There won't be any – you won't have copies of the – all the archives will be on the web. So that something where – and also, what about those 30,000 emails that she deleted? Or did she keep them for – even if you have personal emails, you don't delete them; you keep them for your private – can you --
MR TONER: Yeah, I can't speak to that. You'll have to direct that question to her. Please, I want to move on to a couple of other --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR TONER: I apologize, Tejinder, but --
QUESTION: So what is your reaction to the recent swap deal between Kyiv and Moscow?
MR TONER: Well, first of all, we welcome today's news about Nadiya Savchenko and the fact that she was returned to Ukraine. And as you note, the Government of Ukraine did make the humanitarian decision to also release two Russian service members who were captured on Ukrainian soil. We're delighted that she's home. She was captured, as we all know, in combat in eastern Ukraine, taken against her will into Russia, and we believe her release and this exchange is an important opportunity, and it's an opportunity for all sides, especially Russia, to fulfill its commitments under Minsk – under the Minsk agreements, and we think that it sets the right stage now and should provide the impetus for a complete implementation. So moving forward, we want to see a sustained, credible ceasefire. We want to see full access for the OSCE. We want to see elections under Ukrainian law that meet OSCE standards. And we also want to see the withdrawal of foreign forces and equipment, and finally the return to Ukraine of full control of its international borders. These are the steps that need to be taken.
Please.
QUESTION: Are you then concerned that in his speech, President Poroshenko said he intends to return Donetsk and Crimea the same way he brought back Savchenko? I mean, are you concerned about that?
MR TONER: I'm unclear what that – in the same way that he would – what's the implication there?
QUESTION: Well, in his statements, when he says he wants to bring back Crimea and Donetsk in the way they brought Savchenko --
MR TONER: Well --
QUESTION: Now, Savchenko herself has said she intends to return to combat missions.
MR TONER: Well, first of all – first of all, let's – again, let's take a step back here.
QUESTION: Sure.
MR TONER: I mean, it was Russia who occupied illegally and remains in Crimea, so we do believe that Crimea should be returned to its rightful owner, if you will, which is Ukraine. In terms of eastern Ukraine, we've been very clear that Russia and the separatists that it backs actively in eastern Ukraine need to comply with the commitments that they made under Minsk, which provides a path towards resolution of this ongoing conflict.
As to Nadiya Savchenko's future plans, hopefully she'll spend time reconnecting with her family and taking some well-earned rest.
QUESTION: What she said was, "I am ready to once again sacrifice my life on the battlefield for Ukraine." Are you concerned about the country being put into conflict once again?
MR TONER: Well, look, I mean, she was a soldier who was imprisoned while in combat in eastern Ukraine fighting separatists, fighting Russian troops on the ground at the time. I don't know what her military future holds, but I think she's speaking from that perspective.
QUESTION: Can I ask (inaudible) --
MR TONER: Please, in the back, Lalit.
QUESTION: -- on Taliban?
QUESTION: Can I ask --
MR TONER: Really quickly. Two more questions, guys. I apologize.
QUESTION: Yeah, I have one quick question on the new Taliban leader --
MR TONER: Yep.
QUESTION: -- Mullah Haibatullah. I wanted to check with you, is he any kind of a terrorist designated list under the U.S.?
MR TONER: He's not.
QUESTION: He's not?
MR TONER: No, he's not. You said – asked if he was on the terrorist – designated terrorist? He's not.
QUESTION: And how do you react that he has rejected the peace process?
MR TONER: He has rejected the peace process?
QUESTION: Yes. The Taliban has rejected the peace process.
MR TONER: Well, look, I mean, just to – we would hope that he would seize the opportunity. He does have an opportunity in front of him to choose peace and to work towards a negotiated solution. We hope that he makes that choice now.
QUESTION: He – they have met --
MR TONER: Nike, real quick. I've got to move quickly. I'm sorry.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) me for being – ask so bluntly. I'm just asking for – as a matter of fact. Is he going to be your next target if he object the peace process?
MR TONER: I'm not going to predict who we might target in the national security interests of the United States.
QUESTION: A quick follow-up?
QUESTION: Another one on Azerbaijan. Another --
MR TONER: Azerbaijan.
QUESTION: -- prisoner of conscience released today is Azerbaijan journalist Khadija Ismayilova. Do you have anything on that?
MR TONER: We've seen those reports. We will have more to say later. We do welcome her release.
QUESTION: Just a quick one.
QUESTION: Does the Department have any reaction --
MR TONER: I'll get to you.
QUESTION: -- to Prime Minister Abe saying he will not visit Pearl Harbor?
MR TONER: President Abe [1]QUESTION: Yeah, just a quick one; you can dispense with it fast --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- and it's – I know it's like the fifth day in a row, but at least it's now formally been announced that Avigdor Lieberman is to be Israel's defense minister. Do you have any comment on the new Israeli government and his appointment to that job in particular?
MR TONER: I do. We have seen reports an agreement's been reached to expand the coalition.
QUESTION: You've seen reports.
MR TONER: We've also seen reports from Israel describing it as the most right-wing coalition in Israel's history. And we also know that many of its ministers have said they opposed a two-state solution. This raises legitimate questions about the direction it may be headed in – headed in, rather – and what kind of policies it may adopt, but ultimately we're going to judge this government based on its actions. We're going to work with this government as we have with every Israeli government that preceded it, with the goal of strengthening our cooperation, and we remain steadfast in our commitment to the security of Israel, and in our commitment to working towards a two-state solution.
Thanks, guys.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:53 p.m.)
[1] Prime Minister Abe
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
